A collection of scientific societies has sent an open letter to all US …

Share this story

Next week, the Environment and Public Works committee is scheduled to begin debate on the Senate's version of a bill intended to begin limiting US greenhouse gas emissions, with a vote scheduled for early November. In advance of that hearing, a collection of 18 US scientific organizations has sent an open letter to members of the Senate, reminding them that climate change is a real phenomenon, and the best available evidence indicates it's being driven by human activities. The unusually blunt language is coupled with an offer: the US scientific community stands ready to provide assistance to anyone who is looking for further information in advance of taking legislative action.

The organizations that have signed the letter cover a wide range of interests and expertise, from the Crop Science Society of America to the American Statistical Society and the American Geophysical Union. The letter starts by saying that the group hopes to remind the Senators of the current consensus of the scientific community, then gets right down to business. "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver," the letter reads. "These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

It goes on to briefly describe some of the consequences expected from the increased temperatures, specifically focusing on those relevant to the US, before ending with an offer of assistance: "We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change." In all, it takes 10 sentences to make its points in language that, in political terms, is unusually frank.

Ars talked with Kasey White, Senior Program Associate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Glenn Ruskin, the Director of the Office of Public Affairs for the American Chemical Society; both of these organizations signed the letter. White said that in addition to the upcoming Senate hearing, the AAAS has noticed that the public's acceptance of the conclusions highlighted by the letter have been dropping as more time passes since the last release of an IPCC report, which occurred in 2007.

She also highlighted the increased lobbying against controlling greenhouse gasses, mentioning the US Chamber of Commerce's call for a new Scopes Trial on climatology, a stand that caused Apple and some major utilities to quit the group. She went on to point to a new nonprofit group dedicated to arguing that CO2 is good for us. Members of the group of signatories had been meeting monthly, and simply decided that the time had come to reiterate what the majority of scientists have accepted.

As for the frank language, White said, "We kept it to what was very well understood without going into the technical details." Ruskin pointed out that most the organizations that signed on had already issued statements on climate change (including the ACS and the AAAS). The goal for the new letter was to identify the common features of those statements. "Each of us in the science community had statements that were quite similar, but there was no coordination among us," Ruskin told Ars. "By working together, we could act as a single voice for the science community."

Although the organizations may be speaking with a single voice, it's clear that (as in other areas of science), there are a number of individuals that remain skeptical of the consensus reached by the scientific community. We asked Ruskin about this, but he said that the ACS already has ways for any members that wish to dissent to make their opinions known. The ACS has a standing committee for environmental issues that meets virtually and at the organization's annual meetings, and they take feedback from the membership. If anyone objects to ACS' statements on climate change (or any other matter), they have had many opportunities to make their opinions known, since the current statement is in its fourth revision; the first was issued over a decade ago.

Given that many members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, most notably James Inhofe, have already clearly staked out positions on the science, we asked whether they expected anyone to take them up on their offer to help with the science. "There's always the chance," White said. "Even if we're not asked to provide testimony, we could still brief any Senator or their staff." For his part, Ruskin felt it was a reminder that there's been an ongoing effort to reach out by the ACS and others; the ACS has been conducting panels for the Congressional leadership, having held one on regional climate models just last month.

But, even if the offer isn't accepted, both White and Ruskin felt that the key message of the letter is that the scientific consensus hasn't shifted in the years since the last IPCC report. "I think it's really notable that you had such a broad array of societies come together to make a strong statement on climate change," White said. Ruskin had a similar sentiment, saying, "Those who are skeptics will remain skeptics, but those who are committed to doing something can see a greater unity from the science community."